Events

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

A central tenet of research in the Carnegie School tradition is that organizations learn from performance feedback. Yet an organizational learning-by-doing perspective can overlook the intra-organizational process of information aggregation whereby individuals' beliefs aggregate to an organizational decision. In organizations, individuals receive feedback not on their own choices, but on the choice made by the organization. We call this “learning-by-participating” in organizational decision-making. We examine the implications of learning-by-participating for the efficacy of alternative decision-making structures (e.g., voting, random delegation). Using a computational model, we find that the efficacy of alternative decision-making structures is shaped by learning-by-participating—e.g., structures that are superior in the absence of individual learning may be inferior in situations where individuals learn-by-participating. Learning-by-participating, which occurs at the intersection of individual learning and organizational information aggregation, exposes a key dimension of heterogeneity among decision-making structures not yet considered in prior literature. In particular, whereas some structures generate higher performance primarily through information aggregation, others do so by improving the accuracy of individuals' beliefs. This occurs because learning-by-participating creates substantial heterogeneity across decision-making structures with respect to organizations' ability to: (a) eliminate individuals' false positive beliefs on poor alternatives, (b) generate a more refined understanding of higher value alternatives, and (c) enable the inclusion of individuals in the decision-making process. Our articulation of learning-by-participating has important implications, and identifies critical boundary conditions, for the wisdom-of-crowds when applied to organizations, and speaks to literatures on the myopia of learning and the value of belief diversity in organizational decision-making.

Contact person: Fabian Gaessler

Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, Raum E10

Country names represent a particular category of geographical names. On the one hand, they can be considered as an element of a country's sovereignty. On the other hand, they are often associated with a particular reputation and certain qualities, either in general or in relation to a specific product category; Swiss watches, Italian fashion or Jamaican coffee are all wellknown examples of this. Some countries, including Switzerland, have adopted legislation that sets the terms of use and protects their country names so that the name can only be used in connection with products or services originating from that country. However, misuse of country names generally takes place beyond the borders of the nation concerned. The challenge is that, according to the principle of territoriality, national rules do not apply abroad. That is why Switzerland, which is very active in protecting the "Swiss made" designation, has developed various tools and mechanisms to defend its country name in third countries. In order to avoid cumbersome procedures and, at the same time, to guarantee an adequate, harmonized and easily enforceable protection throughout the world, a group of delegations has requested WIPO to discuss and adopt proposals which aim to better protect country names and geographical names of national significance at international level.

This presentation explores, based on Switzerland's experience, the opportunities, benefits and challenges of protecting and enforcing country names at both national and international levels.

Felix Addor serves as the Deputy Director General and General Counsel of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. He is responsible for all legal and policy matters regarding all fields of IP at national and international levels. He is also a Professor (‘Titularprofessor’) at the Faculty of Law and a lecturer at the World Trade Institute, University of Bern. He lectures on IP, international negotiations and global governance.

If you plan on attending, we kindly request that you register with Ms. Ulrike Stubenvoll (ulrike.stubenvoll(at)miplc.de) at your earliest convenience. 

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

Coming up with creative ideas is easier when striving for positive outcomes and improvement (approach motivation) rather than striving to avoid negative outcomes and failure (avoidance motivation). Yet, creative ideas and solutions are often particularly needed in the face of potential threats and crises. I will present some recent studies in which we tested potential interventions aimed at reducing the negative effects of avoidance motivation on creativity. Specifically, I will discuss the effects of task structure, mindfulness meditation, and planning.

Contact Person: Dr. Marina Chugunova

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Room E10

Please register by 15 May under elisabeth.amler(at)ip.mpg.de

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Room E10

We look forward to welcoming you and ask you to register for better planning by 13.5.2019 at the latest at delia.zirilli(at)ip.mpg.de.

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

We document persistent gender disparities in economics. The fraction of women in economics has grown significantly over the last forty years but the difference in research output between men and women remains large. There are significant differences in the co-authorship networks of men and women: women have fewer collaborators, collaborate more often with the same co-authors, and a higher fraction of their co-authors are co-authors of each other. Both men and women exhibit homophily in their co-authorship relations. Finally, women collaborate with more senior co-authors. Similar output and collaboration patterns obtain in sociology.

Contact person: Michael Rose, Ph.D.

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Room E10

Moderation: Benedikt Hammerschmid (MPI)
 

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

Public support for industry, either financial or in-kind, is predicated on the existence of unpaid and unrequited benefits flowing from one organisation to another. It follows that public support should be most generous where the outflows of these benefits are greatest. R&D activity is considered one notable source of these external benefits. There is now as strong and consistent body of evidence across the world that shows that firms, which interact or locate near R&D-active firms, receive considerable benefits. However, there is no reason why the magnitude of these benefits should be the same from all industries. Despite the quantity of studies, there has been scant evidence to indicate which sectors and what type of R&D produce the most benefits. This paper takes a step towards addressing this omission with the ultimate goal being the design of more targeted industry policies.

Contact person: Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Room E10

The bloxberg infrastructure is a permissioned blockchain network driven by Proof of Authority consensus (only selected nodes process transactions) and established by a consortium of leading research organizations worldwide. The bloxberg Consortium aims to fosters collaboration among the global scientific community, empowering researchers with robust, autonomous services that transcend institutional boundaries. For example, researchers can leverage bloxberg to create a transparent footprint of their work, without revealing its content. Starting with a research data certification system, the bloxberg infrastructure is destined to be extended and enhanced with tools and myriad decentralized applications (dAPPs) as research needs grow and shift. Furthermore, with consented transactions on the bloxberg infrastructure, research claims need not be limited to one institution alone, but can be confirmed by the whole trusted network. One vision is that the network itself may replace traditional scientific infrastructure such as closed-access publishing of research results.

Contact: Felix Pöge 

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

We measure the value of connections with editorial boards by identifying the causal effect of board membership on publication success using membership rotation in a sample of over 100 economics journals over the period 1990-2011. We decompose the total effect on publication success in a direct effect on joining board members' publications and an indirect effect on the publications of various types of authors connected to joining members.
We find large effects, both at the aggregate, journal--department level and the individual board member-connected author level. Although the bulk of these effects are direct, indirect effects are large. More editorial power, captured by the member's role in the submission process, and long service on the editorial board lead to substantially larger increases. The effect is absent for Europe-based connected authors, equally strong for either gender and is stronger in generalist than in field journals.
We analyze various mechanisms. We find no evidence for publication success-enhancing information flowing from the journal to authors and little evidence of favoritism. The evidence is consistent with editors searching for papers in their networks and connections with members acting as signals.

Contact person: Michael Rose, Ph.D.